Thursday, May 10, 2012

Obama Comes Out And Marriage Lessons From NC

The President of the United States has come out and declared that marriage should be redefined. He now officially advocates for so-called homosexual "marriage."

And the resounding defeat of those who would seek to redefine marriage in North Carolina has provided some lessons for all of us who stand for marriage, and seek to defend it. Even against the President.

A few observations:

1. North Carolina is not Washington State. However, there is an inherent sense about marriage among most people, even left wing progressives such as Gov. Gregoire and other state legislators who admitted they were personally conflicted when it came to supporting the redefinition of marriage. President Obama has told the world his view on marriage has been "evolving." Until today.

Most people know in their heart that redefining marriage is not "equality," it is not natural, nor is it morally right. And those who practice homosexual behavior were not "born that way."

2. Money is not the final word on the marriage issue. In North Carolina, those who seek to redefine marriage raised twice as much as those who defended marriage. The defenders of marriage raised and spent about $1.1 million. The homosexual group raised and spent about $2.2 million.

3. Celebrity power is not the final word on the marriage issue. President Obama has been giving the same "nod and wink" to the homosexual community as he gave to Russia when he whispered into a live mic, "Cut me some slack--give me some space, wait until after the election." The homosexual activists have known the little secret and the press has been giving the President a pass while he was "evolving." Everyone in North Carolina knew where the President stood on the homosexual agenda when they voted Tuesday.

However, this morning President Obama has come out and is telling ABC's Robin Roberts, in an interview taped yesterday afternoon, he has fully evolved and now supports so-called homosexual "marriage".

Vice President Biden made his position very clear last Sunday on NBC, two days before the North Carolina election, and former President Bill Clinton sent out thousands of robo calls asking people in North Carolina to reject the marriage amendment. The people said "No" to all of them and their attempt to redefine marriage. And "Yes" to marriage.

The President's newly discovered "truth" in publicly supporting homosexual "marriage" will not change many minds. Everyone already knew where he stood. It will be a moment to celebrate for homosexual activists in that he is the first sitting President of the United States, in our history, to publicly support the redefinition of marriage.

Hopefully it will be a moment to reflect on the reality of our times and the need for action, by conservative people of faith.

4. The New York Times did their best to put a smiley face on the major set back, but the best they could do was to quote the homosexual campaign director saying, "We know we pushed the needle forward. This is just a skirmish, a battle in the war that we will win. We gave it everything we had." When President Obama's remarks became known, the press quickly replaced reporting on the defeat in NC in favor of applauding the courage of the President.

But did the needle move? Probably not.

5. Tamie Fitzgerald, who led the "Vote FOR Marriage NC," said, "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults."

Which leads to this:

6. The marriage issue can only be won on the basis of biblical morality and nature. The NC effort was successful because it was based on the Truth that the concept of marriage was instituted by God at Creation and the institution of marriage predates all other civil institutions, organized government and world religions. Anything other than one man and one woman is not marriage. Nor can it be.

There are those, some in the referendum leadership in Washington State, who tend to prefer to make a secular case for defending marriage and avoid using a biblical position, probably because of the ridicule from the likes of Dan Savage, the press and others.

I want to personally be on record. NOM and the sponsor of R-74 have said they will need to raise several millions of dollars---up to $6 million, for the public campaign, after R-74 is on the ballot. I'm not sure why so much in that NOM invested $425,000 in North Carolina. I am certain, however, if the campaign is run to be "cool" and not necessarily biblically based, it will lose. Money alone cannot win this issue. Secular arguments alone cannot win this issue. Celebrities alone cannot win this issue.

If people are not biblically based in their morality, whether practicing Christian or not, progressive relativism will lead them to vote for so-called "equality" and "fairness" to prove to themselves and others they are not bigoted.

The argument for a secular case goes something like this: "Washington is a very liberal state."

And it is, particularly in the population center of the Puget Sound.

"We can't simply quote Bible verses and win the marriage contest. We have to make a more secular case for marriage," they say, "about family, the value of biological parents, etc." That's important, but not the most important to winning a vote of the public.

I believe the only chance we have to win against the formidable homosexual lobby and the very biased, complicit press in Washington State, is to make a case for biblically based, time proven morality. A biblical marriage model that every successful civil government and every major world religion has affirmed for more than 5000 years, but did not create. And cannot redefine.

Biblical marriage---one man and one woman, is the only model that can sustain the human race.

16 comments:

Under the guise of tolerance and fairness, Obama and all those people that want to support the homosexual agenda want to change 6,000 years of history and redefine the definition of marriage. For just 3% of the poplulation at most? We must stop this well financed attempt to change the culture values and principles of moral people.

The liberal left bases their arguments on fairness, liberty and caring. They do not value sanctity, loyalty or authority. What's unfortunate is that the base for their arguments does not extend to considering their American neighbors who are socially conservative. While they "fix" the culture for homosexuals, they take away my freedom (liberty) to live my faith daily in America. That's not fair. It also does not exude any caring for those who are different from liberals, who say that compassion is important to them. While agreeing to not force priests, rabbi's, ministers and others to perform marriages of homosexuals is a step in the right direction, more is needed to enable me to live as a Catholic in America -- both inside and outside of my physical church. As a business owner, I will be forced to provide benefits to a homosexual's partner while I do not believe that marriage is marriage for homosexuals. As a parent, I will be forced to have my children educated in public schools by people who will work to undo the Catholic lifestyle that I choose to bring my children up in. If a Catholic school hires a homosexual person who later marries, we all know the lawsuit that will follow when the school seeks to terminate that person. We already see discussions on how the terms "mom" and "dad" make the children of homosexuals uncomfortable as well as how those terms do not describe the homosexual adult relationship to their children -- and thus, we are being encouraged to move toward the use of parent(s) instead. State code is already being revised to replace the terms "husband" and "wife" with "spouses."

Liberals do not value sanctity. They allege that they value caring and fairness but how fair or caring is it that as an American I will be charged with or accused of discrimination for living my faith and that my church is being forced by secular, atheists to adopt their beliefs because it's time, it's argued, for my church and others to move into a contemporary, secular age? This isn't the democratic way.

Liberals pick and choose who they care about, who they have compassion for, who they want to experience liberty. They are not inclusive. Isn't that discriminatory, bigoted behavior?

Homosexuals, drunks, single parents, wealthy singles, unstable two parent homes...all and more can parent children. The real issue is what is the optimal condition for raising children. It's a fact that boys model and bond with the male parent as females do with the female parent. If you had raised children, you would see this naturally occurring in your own male/female parent home. There's a biological reason that that occurs; it's critical to healthy development. We already have a world filled with folks who should not be parenting. Shouldn't we really be focusing on growing more healthy children rather than creating more less than optimal conditions?

Child rearing experts say the 3 most important qualities that lead to a good child rearing result are:1. Stable home environment. 2. Two parent household.3. Wealth.All other qualities are statistical no shows.

Letting people license their marriages adds to all three regardless of the parent's genders. We license marriages to allow the state with a set of laws that are individual based treat a couple as a single individual in many situations. This allows the government to stay out of the family unit more than it would have to if they were two individuals.

Licensing marriage is about making marriages better, whatever their qualities before licensing. That's why all married citizens should be able to license as we can here in Washington.

Allowing all married citizens to license the same contract is just good old American common sense and values.

The statement was: "one man and one woman, is the only model that can sustain the human race"

None of you have been able to validate this ridiculous claim.

Regarding the additional claim that gay parents provide less than optimal conditions - studies have proven that there is no negative impact on children raised by gay parents. Sexual orientation does not determine parenting skills. Your claim that it is less than optimal just doesn't hold water.

839 You might have missed the basic Biological stupidity of your comment , but lets just say you meant after a Mom and Dad unite and a baby is born .Then something happens that caused the mom and dad not to be part of the childs life . Interesting statistics homosexual activists point to always disregard the fact the child is only part of a the homosexual family because of a tradegy . then goes on to say it makes no difference . Got to wonder what they are concerned about , the child or making the homosexual parent appear better then thou.

So scientifically you can defend two thiefs, two child molesters , two good homosexual parents , two lousy ones , two of anything or even one or three people and defend your statement .

But actually there is research that provides the difference in brain functions between men and women . The way way men bond is different from the way women bond with their children . That is just one basic difference . Proving that scientifically , well I don't think anyone can prove it is beneficial , I would think to redefine marriage that would be something the homosexual side shoupd have the burden of proof on . if kids were important ?

hmmm... really??? As long as there are sperm and egg donors, I really don't think that 'one man and one woman, is the only model that can sustain the human race'. But, then, you obviously missed the biological stupidity of your own comment.

So, your position is that children of gay people are better off with a single parent or in a family where the partners live together w/o the benefit of marriage? I disagree, I think marriage is good and stabilizes a family.